Where Congress Stands on ESEA and IDEA Reauthorization

1. Where Congress Stands on ESEA and IDEA Reauthorization Leigh Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Spring Forum 2011 lmanasevit@bruman.com

2. ESEA Reauthorization

3. 110th Congress: Second Session: ESEA Reauthorization

4. ESEA Background • President Johnson’s legacy: The War on Poverty, announced on January 8, 1964 • Original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Johnson in 1965 • ESEA in 1965 = 32 pages • NCLB of 2001 = 670 pages

5. ESEA Reauthorization: 2007, ouch! • House Draft Bill imploded for many reasons • Urgency prior to 2008 elections • Complexity of House Discussion Draft identification schema • Complexity of House Discussion Draft intervention schema • Union antagonism toward teacher effectiveness provisions • Gone is the post 9/11 partisan moment. Strange bedfellows are, again, strangers.

6. ESEA Reauthorization: Two Four Years Later • Evolution of data systems and growth models • Progress (some) with school turnaround • Change in union leadership and strategy – Better relationships under Secretary Duncan? • Democratic/Republican majorities – Healthcare outcome?

7. ESEA Reauthorization Timeline • NCLB Jan 2001 to Jan 2002

8. ESEA Reauthorization: Recovery Act and current ESEA Structure • In addition to program changes, there may be fiscal changes • Reexamine comparability • Reconsider the fundamental structure of federal fiscal support - Formula vs. Competitive • Is the 1965 ESEA model appropriate to the contemporary education reform focus?

9. ESEA Reauthorization: Congressional Strategy • Original architects, particularly George Miller (D-CA) remain central • Vulnerable Democrats are strategic • Newly elected Republicans looking to introduce conservative principles • Success of Race to the Top • Recovery Act accountability fatigue • Inverse relation to Health Care?

10. ESEA Reauthorization: Congressional Strategy • Republican strategy • Returning to federalist roots? • House Committee on Education and Labor Ranking Member Representative John P. Kline (MN) - Now Chair • "I'm not looking to tweak No Child Left Behind," Kline said. "As far as I'm concerned, we ought to go in and look at the whole thing." (Nick Anderson, “GOP Leaving ‘No Child’ Behind,” Washington Post, July 13, 2009)

11. Education Committees • House Education & Workforce • Chairman John Kline (R-MN) • Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) • Senate HELP Committee • Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) • Ranking Member Michael Enzi (R-WY)

12. Senate • Senator Harkin – draft by Easter? • Wants 1 big bill

13. House • No official timeframe • Hearings started • February: overview • March: regulations • 6-8 months possible • Will approach 12 election year • Chairman Kline – possible numerous small bills

14. White House • President Obama, Secretary Duncan: • Reauthorization this year • Chairman Kline: • Cannot allow an arbitrary deadline to undermine quality reforms

15. Battles • Formulas, especially Title I, Title III • RTT and other competitive programs • Republicans don’t like broad agency discretion, but do like the idea of locally-driven reform • Level of Federal engagement and funding generally • Accountability

16. Battles • Vouchers • Will definitely be in play • Unlikely to be part of Reauthorization Bill • But general discussion of school choice will play an important role

17. Statement of Principles to Fix the ESEAIssued by 10 moderate Senate Democrats and Independent Joseph Lieberman • Increase local flexibility • Higher standards but more flexibility to meet them • Consolidate programs • Spur innovation • Scale up success • Reward success • NCLB did not reward growth • Transparency and Equity • Better Reporting

18. Statement of Principles to Fix the ESEAIssued by 10 moderate Senate Democrats and Independent Joseph Lieberman • Growth Model • Support SIG 4 models • Transformation • Restart • Close • Turnaround • Teachers and Leaders • Improve pathways to classroom • Evaluate teacher prep by how graduates do • Innovations • Support RTT, Investing in Innovation (i3), and high quality Charters • Close the comparability loophole

19. Statement of Principles to Fix the ESEAIssued by 10 moderate Senate Democrats and Independent Joseph Lieberman • Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) • Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) • Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) • Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE) • Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) • Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) • Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) • Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) • Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) • Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) • Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) (caucuses with Democrats)

20. Secretary Duncan’s Blueprinthttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

21. A Blueprint for Reform - 7 Sections • College Career Ready Students • Great Teachers and Great Learners • Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners • A Complete Education • Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students • Fostering Innovation and Excellence • Additional Cross Cutting Priorities

22. Blueprint • College Career Ready Students • Revise standards to align with college career readiness • Evaluate schools – differential interventions • Great Teachers/Great Leaders • Statewide (new) definitions • HQT but less emphasis on credentials • More on student achievement

23. Blueprint • English Language Learners and Other Diverse Learners • More SWD integration to regular program • Bilingual education 4. A Complete Education – A New Approach • Literacy • STEM • Common State Standards

24. Blueprint • Successful, Safe, Healthy Students • Promise neighborhoods • Community services • Family support • Community-wide needs assessment

25. Blueprint • Innovation and Excellence • Expanded options • Charters • “Autonomous” public schools 7. Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities • Flexibility for success????

26. Possible Changes – GAO Report • Comparability • Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Potential Effects of Changing Comparability Requirements. GAO-11-258, January 28. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-258

27. Possible Changes – GAO Report • Reviewed 3 States, 3 Districts in each

28. General Rule- §1120A(c) • An LEA may receive Title I Part A funds only if it uses state and local funds to provide services in Title I schools that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to the services provided in non-Title I schools. • If all are Title I schools, all must be “substantially comparable”

29. GAO Report - Possible Changes • Districts commonly use student – teacher ratios – but other factors drive resource allocation • Weakness in oversight by States

30. GAO Report - Possible Changes • Changes in requirements would drive more $ to some Title I schools – but difficult to implement • Challenges: • Union contracts • Teacher seniority rights

31. GAO Report - Possible Changes • Use of per pupil expenditures by school

32. Race to the Top • Highly Competitive • Focus on low(est) performing schools • Highly structured and detailed • Incentives ($) to implement ED priorities • Secretary Duncan specifically defended the 4 SIG turnaround models • RTT coordinated with SIG

33. Race to the Top • Eligibility Requirements • No bar to linking teacher and principal evaluation to student achievement (absolute) • No barriers to Charter Schools (competitive)

34. School Improvement Grants SIG-1003g • 2 pages in the Law – Section 1003g • Historically not well funded • ARRA provided $3 billion • Secretary Duncan issued 86 page guidance document February 2011 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance02232011.pdf

35. SIG-1003g • Very prescriptive • 3 tiers of schools • 4 intervention models – Secretary Duncan defends 4 models • SASA team reviews for 2011 to focus only on SIG

36. SIG-RTT Common Elements • Whole school approach • All students • All staff: including principals • Focus on lowest performing schools • Intense embedded PD

37. Other Reauthorization Issues • AYP – Admin – Scrap and Replace • With college and career readiness • Benchmark - certainly move to growth model

38. Other Reauthorization Issues • Failure to make AYP • Center for Education Policy Study http://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Usher_FourYearsAYPTrends_121610.pdf • Districts Failing AYP • 2006 29% • 2009 36% • Schools Failing AYP • 2006 29% • 2009 33% • 2013- 2014 SY 100% proficient: Required • Causing sharp increases in target levels

39. Other Reauthorization Issues • Secretary Duncan: • 82% of schools could fail AYP this year (10-11)

40. Other Reauthorization Issues • Class size reduction • Secretary says may not be that important

41. Other Reauthorization Issues • HQT • Move to RTT type evaluation based on student achievement

42. US ED SASA Monitoring – Top Ten Findings in Frequency • Private Schools • Consultation • Failure to evaluate • Failure to maintain control • Contracting • Student selection (not based on poverty!!!) • Parental Involvement • 95% of reservation to schools • Equitable participation • Parental Involvement • Choice/SES notifications • Teacher qualifications

43. Top Ten Findings (cont…) • Fiscal • comparability • supplanting • time and effort • District Report Cards • missing elements • Choice • options not on website • State Report Cards • missing elements

44. Top Ten Findings (cont…) • Parental Notification • Choice and SES options • Paraprofessional qualifications • SES • Information not on websites

45. IDEA Reauthorization • Last 2004 • Next ?? • Little movement • Chairman Klein supports full funding • McMorris-Rodgers amendment to spending bill undid proposed cuts in draft spending bill • Republican rank and file support? • May go before ESEA

46. This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service.  This presentation does not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC.  You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.